Wind Concerns Ontario is a province-wide advocacy organization whose mission is to provide information on the potential impact of industrial-scale wind power generation on the economy, human health, and the natural environment.

You have seen the name Tyler Hamilton often on these pages; an “adjunct” professor of environmental studies at York University, Hamilton was for years an occasional columnist on environmental issues for The Toronto Star (and a sometimes target of commentator Parker Gallant). What a surprise, then, to see his name crop up in a series of government e-mails. Here from Tom Adams blog is a summary of the e-mail exchange, and the apparent suggestion of feeding Royal Jelly to Mr Hamilton, so he could continue his good work of spreading news of the government’s “green” agenda. Tom Adams’ report “Corrupt electricity reporting” is here:

Here is a time line to help readers understand the background behind some of the Toronto Star’s reporting of Ontario electricity news. November 23, 2010: In an email exchange Ben Chin, Ontario Power Authority VP, former Ontario Liberal candidate, and also former senior media advisor to then Premier Dalton McGuinty discusses with senior communications staffer, Alicia Johnston, employed in the Ontario Minister of Energy’s office. Johnston complains about negative reporting by Tom Adams and proposes that “We’ve got to get him (Tyler Hamilton) out as an ‘expert’ commentator.” Chin replies, “We need to throw him (Tyler Hamilton) some work.” Ben Chin has presented himself as an authority on politics and journalistic ethics, including this interview soon after he left his then prominent career in broadcast journalism. May 3, 2011: The Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO), closely supervised by the Ontario government, released a report on “Smart Grid” development in the province. The Corporate Partners Committee participating in the report included a Who’s Who of international energy technology firms selling Smart Grid concepts around the world. The Ontario government’s electricity policies heavily emphasize promoting Smart Grid. In a footnote, the report thanks Tyler Hamilton for his assistance in preparing this report. Here are two examples of Toronto Star Business Section articles that subsequently appeared on the subject of Smart Grid authored by Tyler Hamilton. Both news reports omit mention of Hamilton’s IESO funding: May 11, 2012: The smarter the grid, the less you notice it June 29, 2012: Smart Grid, Delayed Delivery Here is the complete response of the IESO, issued earlier today, when I sought details on how much Tyler Hamilton got paid for his work on the Smart Grid report:

Tyler Hamilton was the successful respondent to a competitive procurement process for the delivery of this report. The IESO uses competitive procurement processes, such as RFQs or RFPs, to evaluate proposals according to a pre-determined set of criteria – including costs and experience. As with standard procurement practice, all bids submitted through this process are subject to non-disclosure agreements.

On Twitter, I have been asking Tyler Hamilton to disclose how much the Ontario government and agents have paid him and his associates like Corporate Knights. As of this posting, no response from Hamilton has been forthcoming. The evidence presented here indicates that Tyler Hamilton’s electricity reporting in the Toronto Star has been corrupted by a conflict of interest. I have previously reported on evidence of similar politicization developing within the Ontario public service. The Ontario public service has contributed to a cover-up of the gas scandal that includes responding to inquiries from the Information and Privacy Commissioner with information she has identified as “inaccurate and incomplete”. Given the importance of an independent press and a professional public service in protecting the public interest, the corrupting effects of Ontario’s ongoing electricity policy challenges appears to represent a substantial threat to the province’s future. Post Script (August 29, 8:21) Please help research this issue. After the OPA’s Ben Chin recommended grea$ing Tyler Hamilton in November 2010, was it only the IESO that started funnelling cash to Hamilton? – See more at: http://www.tomadamsenergy.com/2013/08/28/corrupt-electricity-reporting/#sthash.coWwGMEA.dpuf

In the e-mail exchange,Ben Chin (former CBC broadcaster, a Liberal candidate, and in this iteration, VP Communications at the OPA) remarks on the damage that Tom Adams is doing with his writing and remarks further to Energy staffer Alicia Johnston that “we’ve got to get him [Hamilton] out as an ‘expert commentator’.” “We need to throw him some work,” Chin adds. Which they did: Hamilton went on to win a contract to help prepare a document for the IESO, and later wrote praising articles about the Ontario government and its work on the “smart grid” without disclosing he had in fact received money from the IESO for work done on documenting the smart grid. Read the full report and check links to actual e-mails and stories on Tom Adams blog.

Corrupt Electricity Reporting

Here is a time line to help readers understand the background behind some of the Toronto Star’s reporting of Ontario electricity news. November 23, 2010: In an email exchange Ben Chin, Ontario Power Authority VP, former Ontario Liberal candidate, and also former senior media advisor to then Premier Dalton McGuinty discusses with senior communications staffer, Alicia Johnston, employed in the Ontario Minister of Energy’s office. Johnston complains about negative reporting by Tom Adams and proposes that “We’ve got to get him (Tyler Hamilton) out as an ‘expert’ commentator.” Chin replies, “We need to throw him (Tyler Hamilton) some work.”

– See more at: http://www.tomadamsenergy.com/2013/08/28/corrupt-electricity-reporting/#sthash.coWwGMEA.dpuf

Here is a time line to help readers understand the background behind some of the Toronto Star’s reporting of Ontario electricity news. November 23, 2010: In an email exchange Ben Chin, Ontario Power Authority VP, former Ontario Liberal candidate, and also former senior media advisor to then Premier Dalton McGuinty discusses with senior communications staffer, Alicia Johnston, employed in the Ontario Minister of Energy’s office. Johnston complains about negative reporting by Tom Adams and proposes that “We’ve got to get him (Tyler Hamilton) out as an ‘expert’ commentator.” Chin replies, “We need to throw him (Tyler Hamilton) some work.” Ben Chin has presented himself as an authority on politics and journalistic ethics, including this interview soon after he left his then prominent career in broadcast journalism. May 3, 2011: The Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO), closely supervised by the Ontario government, released a report on “Smart Grid” development in the province. The Corporate Partners Committee participating in the report included a Who’s Who of international energy technology firms selling Smart Grid concepts around the world. The Ontario government’s electricity policies heavily emphasize promoting Smart Grid. In a footnote, the report thanks Tyler Hamilton for his assistance in preparing this report. Here are two examples of Toronto Star Business Section articles that subsequently appeared on the subject of Smart Grid authored by Tyler Hamilton. Both news reports omit mention of Hamilton’s IESO funding: May 11, 2012: The smarter the grid, the less you notice it June 29, 2012: Smart Grid, Delayed Delivery – See more at: http://www.tomadamsenergy.com/2013/08/28/corrupt-electricity-reporting/#sthash.coWwGMEA.dpuf

Corrupt Electricity Reporting

Here is a time line to help readers understand the background behind some of the Toronto Star’s reporting of Ontario electricity news. November 23, 2010: In an email exchange Ben Chin, Ontario Power Authority VP, former Ontario Liberal candidate, and also former senior media advisor to then Premier Dalton McGuinty discusses with senior communications staffer, Alicia Johnston, employed in the Ontario Minister of Energy’s office. Johnston complains about negative reporting by Tom Adams and proposes that “We’ve got to get him (Tyler Hamilton) out as an ‘expert’ commentator.” Chin replies, “We need to throw him (Tyler Hamilton) some work.” Ben Chin has presented himself as an authority on politics and journalistic ethics, including this interview soon after he left his then prominent career in broadcast journalism. May 3, 2011: The Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO), closely supervised by the Ontario government, released a report on “Smart Grid” development in the province. The Corporate Partners Committee participating in the report included a Who’s Who of international energy technology firms selling Smart Grid concepts around the world. The Ontario government’s electricity policies heavily emphasize promoting Smart Grid. In a footnote, the report thanks Tyler Hamilton for his assistance in preparing this report. Here are two examples of Toronto Star Business Section articles that subsequently appeared on the subject of Smart Grid authored by Tyler Hamilton. Both news reports omit mention of Hamilton’s IESO funding: May 11, 2012: The smarter the grid, the less you notice it June 29, 2012: Smart Grid, Delayed Delivery Here is the complete response of the IESO, issued earlier today, when I sought details on how much Tyler Hamilton got paid for his work on the Smart Grid report:

Tyler Hamilton was the successful respondent to a competitive procurement process for the delivery of this report. The IESO uses competitive procurement processes, such as RFQs or RFPs, to evaluate proposals according to a pre-determined set of criteria – including costs and experience. As with standard procurement practice, all bids submitted through this process are subject to non-disclosure agreements.

On Twitter, I have been asking Tyler Hamilton to disclose how much the Ontario government and agents have paid him and his associates like Corporate Knights. As of this posting, no response from Hamilton has been forthcoming. The evidence presented here indicates that Tyler Hamilton’s electricity reporting in the Toronto Star has been corrupted by a conflict of interest. I have previously reported on evidence of similar politicization developing within the Ontario public service. The Ontario public service has contributed to a cover-up of the gas scandal that includes responding to inquiries from the Information and Privacy Commissioner with information she has identified as “inaccurate and incomplete”. Given the importance of an independent press and a professional public service in protecting the public interest, the corrupting effects of Ontario’s ongoing electricity policy challenges appears to represent a substantial threat to the province’s future. Post Script (August 29, 8:21) Please help research this issue. After the OPA’s Ben Chin recommended grea$ing Tyler Hamilton in November 2010, was it only the IESO that started funnelling cash to Hamilton?

– See more at: http://www.tomadamsenergy.com/2013/08/28/corrupt-electricity-reporting/#sthash.coWwGMEA.dpuf

Here is a time line to help readers understand the background behind some of the Toronto Star’s reporting of Ontario electricity news. November 23, 2010: In an email exchange Ben Chin, Ontario Power Authority VP, former Ontario Liberal candidate, and also former senior media advisor to then Premier Dalton McGuinty discusses with senior communications staffer, Alicia Johnston, employed in the Ontario Minister of Energy’s office. Johnston complains about negative reporting by Tom Adams and proposes that “We’ve got to get him (Tyler Hamilton) out as an ‘expert’ commentator.” Chin replies, “We need to throw him (Tyler Hamilton) some work.” Ben Chin has presented himself as an authority on politics and journalistic ethics, including this interview soon after he left his then prominent career in broadcast journalism. May 3, 2011: The Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO), closely supervised by the Ontario government, released a report on “Smart Grid” development in the province. The Corporate Partners Committee participating in the report included a Who’s Who of international energy technology firms selling Smart Grid concepts around the world. The Ontario government’s electricity policies heavily emphasize promoting Smart Grid. In a footnote, the report thanks Tyler Hamilton for his assistance in preparing this report. Here are two examples of Toronto Star Business Section articles that subsequently appeared on the subject of Smart Grid authored by Tyler Hamilton. Both news reports omit mention of Hamilton’s IESO funding: May 11, 2012: The smarter the grid, the less you notice it June 29, 2012: Smart Grid, Delayed Delivery Here is the complete response of the IESO, issued earlier today, when I sought details on how much Tyler Hamilton got paid for his work on the Smart Grid report:

Tyler Hamilton was the successful respondent to a competitive procurement process for the delivery of this report. The IESO uses competitive procurement processes, such as RFQs or RFPs, to evaluate proposals according to a pre-determined set of criteria – including costs and experience. As with standard procurement practice, all bids submitted through this process are subject to non-disclosure agreements.

On Twitter, I have been asking Tyler Hamilton to disclose how much the Ontario government and agents have paid him and his associates like Corporate Knights. As of this posting, no response from Hamilton has been forthcoming. The evidence presented here indicates that Tyler Hamilton’s electricity reporting in the Toronto Star has been corrupted by a conflict of interest. I have previously reported on evidence of similar politicization developing within the Ontario public service. The Ontario public service has contributed to a cover-up of the gas scandal that includes responding to inquiries from the Information and Privacy Commissioner with information she has identified as “inaccurate and incomplete”. Given the importance of an independent press and a professional public service in protecting the public interest, the corrupting effects of Ontario’s ongoing electricity policy challenges appears to represent a substantial threat to the province’s future. Post Script (August 29, 8:21) Please help research this issue. After the OPA’s Ben Chin recommended grea$ing Tyler Hamilton in November 2010, was it only the IESO that started funnelling cash to Hamilton? – See more at: http://www.tomadamsenergy.com/2013/08/28/corrupt-electricity-reporting/#sthash.coWwGMEA.dpuf

The IESO manages the electricity grid in Ontario. That job has become much more complex since Ontario started adding intermittentrenewable energy (wind and solar) to the grid.Complicating matters further is the stipulation, via the Green Energy Act, that both those sources of generation get “first to the grid” rights.*

Part of this management responsibility is to forecast generation. IESO in their forecasting efforts for Surplus Baseload Generation (SBG) look forward for 10 days with revisions/updates made daily to those forecasts; the tenth day is added as the forecast period becomes reality.IESO issues forecasts and often now even issue an “Alert”, two to four days out, which is defined as: “Forecast SBG will exceed the forecast of expected exports for four or more contiguous hours.”

To explore their “forecasts” let’s take a look at their forecast for August 25, 2013.IESO’s outlook for that particular Sunday, made on August 23, 2013, predicted an SBG of 38,786 megawatts (MWh) and an “Alert.”For six of the 24 hours, the anticipated SBG was in excess of the forecasted “exports” which were projected as 2,700 MW per hour.

The August 24, 2013 forecast, however, for August 25, 2013 noted zero hours when the SBG would exceed those export forecasts (the same 2,700 MW) and the SBG for the full day had dropped to 19,485 MW—the “Alert” disappeared.

So the question becomes, exactly what happened in the 24 hours that changed the SBG so dramatically?Did the weather forecast change that much, or did several of the large industrial users suddenly decide that they would run their plants on the weekend to suck up all of that SBG?

The short answer is, neither of the above!

What appears to have happened is that IESO arranged to have Bruce Power steam off a huge chunk of their nuclear generation (as much as 1,600 MW), perhaps get the Ontario Power Generation to spill off clean hydro, and get those NUG-contracted generators to also shut down another 600 MW of gas generation.

Despite the foregoing Ontario still exported 51,528 MWh(according to IESO’s Market Summary of August 25, 2013) at an “average weighted price” of $20.58 per MWh (2.06 cents per kWh) while wind produced 14,304 MWh. That earned wind developers almost $2 million, with $1.6 million (the difference between earnings from the exports and what we paid the wind developers) therefore allocated to the Global Adjustment (GA) along with the monies paid to Bruce; perhaps as much as $2.5 million, the NUGs; perhaps another $1 million and a loss of revenue to OPG.

We are unable to determine the costs of the latter three or the monies paid to the solar generators as IESO don’t provide any details on who they asked to curtail production or what we ratepayers paid them to curtail their production.

Any efforts to obtain the latter information under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act would be declined as I have learned from past efforts.The foregoing are simply the writer’s efforts to reasonably calculate what that recent Sunday cost the ratepayers of Ontario.

Based on the suppositions noted above, we would estimate that the additional costs associated with those payments to not produce power and what was lost by exporting the surplus power added a minimum of 1.4 cents per kWh (double the stranded debt charges) to the average Ontario ratepayer’s bill for that one day in late August 2013.

We should all hope for fewer days like this as IESO’s apparent efforts at forecasting are simply meant to determine who should be paid for the follies of the energy policies put in place by the Liberal government and its energy ministers.

It is time that the Ontario ratepayers demand that we stop “paying up” for the mess that the Liberals have created, and for the IESO to stop claiming that what they do is “forecasting”!

Parker Gallant,

August 27, 2013

*(similar to nuclear, must-run hydro, and the obligation to take the NUG/non-utility generators output.The latter consist principally of older contracted gas plants whose contracts have been recently renewed by the Ontario Power Authority/OPA)

The views expressed here are those of the author and not necessarily those of Wind Concerns Ontario.

Here is a report on the Bluewater Council meeting this week, from resident Hal March, who made a presentation to the Council.

What a disaster! Last night, Bluewater council passed the Building Permit changes unanimously without making a single modification! The IWT companies are happy for sure. For details of the by-law check http://www.town.bluewater.on.ca/

Mayor Bill Dowson did not declare a conflict until the last five minutes of the meeting and led the meeting for the three hours until the vote. He asked the very first leading questions to lawyer Eric Gillespie, which were clearly asked to support his agenda. When he declared a conflict it was after being asked about his prior conflicts (with the same by-law) and he said it was about building permits not IWT.

Clearly all the changes from the original were solely for IWT and due to Nextera and Northland negotiations with Bluewater. Two by-laws were passed the amended building permit fee and the decommissioning and it was the latter Bill Dowson had a conflict on. Councillors Klopp and Becker who also previously declared a conflict were absent.There was a gentleman there who warned Council about the risks of putting IWT and related equipment on top of the massive underground natural gas storage in Bluewater. No one seemed to be too concerned, even when compared with unforeseen disasters like what happened in Lac Megantic. $5million insurance should cover it right?

Councillor John Gillespie was the most disappointing as he indicated the original building by-law he proposed for IWT was there to protect Bluewater not the residents. He seems to think that if Bluewater cannot afford to take on the IWT, each individual resident can! There was no protection discussed for the residents, it was all about protecting the government of Bluewater.

They took no notice of the Bluewater Shoreline Residents Association suggestion to get the parent company guarantee beyond the $5 million unspecific insurance policy. This was clearly done for the wind company demands who had representatives in the audience.

Paul Steckle a former Liberal MP with IWT leases stood up and demanded that council provide the legal cost “wasted” on fighting IWT at the next council meeting. Zurich residents and the Zurich chamber complained about the notice but refused to ask for a vote to defer. There was little notice: the only reason there were 40 or so people there was they read about it on Monday on the municipal website.

A suggestion was made that the decision be postponed several times, but Eric Gillespie said they needed to talk about that in-camera. After the in-camera session, they all looked very sheepish when they came back and obviously agreed to go 100% support so no one looked bad.

I could see George Irvin was disgusted by the look on his face, but he fell in line anyway.

I feel like we have been sold out due to a council fearful of legal action, and they should have been at least willing to force a corporate guarantee from the publicly held companies.

In keeping with our theme today of how miraculously clean and green the equipment involved in power generation from wind is, here from physicist John Droz is a listing of the chemical and construction components of a single 3-MW wind turbine. The list of ingredients includes 2 tons of “rare earth elements” which we know is an environmental health hazard in China, where the rare earth elements are mined, polluting air and water. And where does all that stuff go when the predatory wind power developers have sopped up their subsidy money and left town? (Still in possession, however, of lease agreements that mean they virtually own the land they leased…)

Here is a story today from the Globe and Mail announcing a wind power project for a nickel mine in Quebec’s Nunavik region.
Many people (including the lawyers for Gilead Power at the recent Environmental Review Tribunal) try to characterize Wind Concerns Ontario and our members as being opposed to anything “renewable” or “green.”Not true.
Here you have an industrial use of power generation from wind (note that otherwise, the mine would be totally dependent on diesel fuel for power generation) for an industrial use. There are several diamond mines in the Northwest Territories also using wind energy to generate power.
These examples simply underscore how wrong-headed Ontario’s policy is regarding wind power: these industrial-scale turbines are more appropriate for an industrial use–they should never be placed near homes and schools.

Harper announces wind energy project for Nunavik mine

Stephen Harper used the final stop in his annual northern Canadian tour to champion a project that would harness wind energy to help power a massive nickel mining operation in Quebec’s Nunavik region.
Remote communities and industry such as Xtrata Nickel Inc.’s Raglan Mine are dependent on diesel-based energy generation today.
The Harper government has given $720,000 to TUGLIQ Energy Co. and Xstrata Nickel Inc. to study the feasibility of integrating wind energy into an existing diesel-based electricity system in Nunavik.
The proposed system would generate energy from wind and store surplus wind energy through hydrogen, providing a stable and sustainable source of energy at Raglan Mine.
If the plan works, a clean energy project could be operating at the mine by March 2016.
“Canadians … expect that Canadian resources will be developed with future generations in mind … in ways that make sensible use of energy and respect the environment,” Mr. Harper said.
“If this technology works here in the way we hope it will, the implications for power generation across the North are enormous. In other words, it could be a ’Eureka!’ moment.”
This project is one of the 55 that aim to produce and use energy in a cleaner, more efficient way. Support is being provided through Natural Resources Canada’s ecoENERGY Innovation Initiative.
Raglan Mine, located in the sub-arctic permafrost of Northern Quebec, was brought into production in 1997. Raglan employs almost 1,000 full-time workers, many of whom come from local communities.

Here is a story today from the Globe and Mail announcing a wind power project for a nickel mine in Quebec’s Nunavik region. Many people (including the lawyers for Gilead Power at the recent Environmental Review Tribunal) try to characterize Wind Concerns Ontario and our members as being opposed to anything “renewable” or “green.”Not true. Here you have an industrial use of power generation from wind (note that otherwise, the mine would be totally dependent on diesel fuel for power generation) for an industrial use. There are several diamond mines in the Northwest Territories also using wind energy to generate power. These examples simply underscore how wrong-headed Ontario’s policy is regarding wind power: these industrial-scale turbines are more appropriate for an industrial use–they should never be placed near homes and schools.

Harper announces wind energy project for Nunavik mine

Stephen Harper used the final stop in his annual northern Canadian tour to champion a project that would harness wind energy to help power a massive nickel mining operation in Quebec’s Nunavik region.Remote communities and industry such as Xtrata Nickel Inc.’s Raglan Mine are dependent on diesel-based energy generation today. The Harper government has given $720,000 to TUGLIQ Energy Co. and Xstrata Nickel Inc. to study the feasibility of integrating wind energy into an existing diesel-based electricity system in Nunavik. The proposed system would generate energy from wind and store surplus wind energy through hydrogen, providing a stable and sustainable source of energy at Raglan Mine. If the plan works, a clean energy project could be operating at the mine by March 2016.“Canadians … expect that Canadian resources will be developed with future generations in mind … in ways that make sensible use of energy and respect the environment,” Mr. Harper said. “If this technology works here in the way we hope it will, the implications for power generation across the North are enormous. In other words, it could be a ’Eureka!’ moment.” This project is one of the 55 that aim to produce and use energy in a cleaner, more efficient way. Support is being provided through Natural Resources Canada’s ecoENERGY Innovation Initiative.Raglan Mine, located in the sub-arctic permafrost of Northern Quebec, was brought into production in 1997. Raglan employs almost 1,000 full-time workers, many of whom come from local communities.

Here is a link to a CBC story on the recent Association of Ontario Municipalities conference. We should add here what Enniskillen Mayor Kevin Marriott said: “a year from now, in August 2014, wind power is going to be the hot topic in the Ontario municipal elections.”

Turbines in Windsor-Essex region

Amherstburg, as well as several municipalities in Lambton County, have put their foot down when it comes to wind turbines.

Amherstburg is among 64 communities that are on an “unwilling hosts” list. Those municipalities don’t want any more wind turbines going up. Another 33 municipalities have “expressed concern” about turbines. Leamington is on that list.

Currently there are more than 100 hundred wind turbines in the Windsor Essex Region and like Amherstburg – Leamington may soon join the “unwilling” list as well. A recent proposal to ban wind turbines in the Leamington area was brought to council last week.

Along with solar power, wind energy is hailed as the way of the future but this type of power generation has many in the province divided.

Until a recent trip to Ottawa, the Ontario government may not have been listening to the concerns of municipalities, according to Leamington mayor John Patterson.

“We had no authority, no power to say where solar farms or wind turbine products could be located,” said Patterson. “Now we have a say … but if the government determines that it’s viable they will probably approve the farm.”

But after attending the Association of Municipalities of Ontario Conference last week, Patterson says the government is willing to listen to concerns from across the province.

Patterson was glad to hear that, because some residents say turbines are a drag on the municipality.

“Property values are driven down because wind turbines are established everywhere and driving down our tax base. There’s an argument on both sides of that point,” he said. “Knowing past discussions on this when there was a proposal to put 750 turbines out in Pigeons Bay, it caught the attention of every tax payer in both communities. I suspect the same kind of feeling may exist on council in regards to turbines on the land.”

More than 100 people are gathering at this hour for the fundraiser for the Charter of Human Rights legal challenge, sponsored by SWEAR, S.T.O.P., and Central Huron in Clinton! Among the many special items auctioned were a golf bag, and Billy Beer from former MPP Bill Murdoch’s own brewery—the last bottle went for $100. Pictured are guests at the fabulous steak dinner, which followed a day of golf. Stephana Johnston of Norfolk and Helen Brimley of Ashfield.